That's the Political Question
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
To mix or not to mix? That’s the political question A comparative study to the role of land ownership in facilitating mixed-income housing developments in the different planning systems of London and Amsterdam Author: Patrick van Son Student number: 10365230 Programme: Urban Studies (Research Master) Programme group: Urban Planning Thesis Supervisor: Prof. dr. Tuna Tasan-Kok Second Reader: Dr. Jochem de Vries Institute: Universiteit van Amsterdam Amsterdam, 22 June 2018 Preface The cover picture is a cut out of the famous painting Victory Boogie Woogie by Dutch painter Piet Mondriaan. A housing programme consists out of a number of basic elements, the housing segments, which resemble the limited amount of colours used by Mondriaan. Some segments typically occur more often in the mix than others, through the influence of national housing policy on shaping these housing segments. Also some colours occur more often than others in the painting. Although the painting seems to be a very simple mix of colours and squares, the painting process was highly complex and Mondriaan constantly altered the composition of the colours. This complexity resembles the development process of mixed-income housing as investigated through this research. Attaining a mix of housing segments in urban developments is certainly desired by policy makers, but the mix can vary to a large extent as the political context influences the way planning instruments and land policy are used to facilitate a mix of housing segments. This thesis is a result of a one and a half year study to a question I personally wanted to investigate. Why is the housing developed in cities what it is? During my years of living in Amsterdam and keeping track of new housing and area developments in this city, I wondered why some new developments consist of merely market homes, why other developments consist of intermediate rent, and why other developments provide a mix of housing segments. I wanted to find out what regulations and other factors influenced the decisions about what housing is developed in the city. At the moment of writing, I can tell that throughout the past one and a half year, I found the answer to that. Particularly in Amsterdam, all planning instruments are available to influence the mix of housing developments, especially when the land is publicly owned. A political commitment towards affordable housing development is however needed to use these instruments in planning practice. This commitment was absent for most of the past decade, but since 2017 the Municipal policy has changed in favour of affordable housing segments, and thus in favour of mixed-income housing. In London, this trend is similar, but as the research will explain, the nature of the British planning system and lack of public land will make it difficult for the Greater London Authority to initiate change and facilitate more affordable housing as part of the housing mix. I am pleased with the large amount of freedom given by my study programme and supervisor to shape this thesis research towards my personal interests. I would also like to thank my supervisor and other academic staff of the University of Amsterdam and Bartlett School of Planning for providing useful feedback on my research. Finally, a special word of thanks to people involved with the studied cases and external experts who have been interviewed for this thesis. Without their help and input this thesis would not have been possible. 1 Index Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction: mixed-income housing, a remedy towards urban affordability problems, but a challenge to develop ............................................................................................................................... 4 2. A theoretical framework on why socio-economically mixed neighbourhoods should be developed and how it can be achieved ................................................................................................... 9 2.1. The importance of socio-economic mixing in urban areas ..................................................... 9 2.1.1. Mixing income groups in urban developments ............................................................... 9 2.1.2. Mixing in a neoliberal context ....................................................................................... 10 2.1.3. Conceptualising mixed-income housing ........................................................................ 11 2.2. Strategies to promote housing mix ....................................................................................... 13 2.2.1. Affordable housing provision embedded in planning and housing systems................. 13 2.2.2. Facilitating affordable housing within the housing mix of new developments ............ 18 3. An institutional framework of housing development in London and Amsterdam ....................... 20 3.1. Two different planning systems ............................................................................................ 20 3.1.1. London embedded in the British development-led system .......................................... 20 3.1.2. Amsterdam as powerful municipality in the Dutch plan-led system ............................ 22 3.2. Housing institutions: who decides what about the housing system? ................................... 24 3.2.1. United Kingdom ............................................................................................................. 24 3.2.2. The Netherlands ............................................................................................................ 25 3.3. Housing segments: what type of housing can be developed in each city? ........................... 27 3.3.1. The United Kingdom and London .................................................................................. 27 3.3.2. The Netherlands & Amsterdam ..................................................................................... 29 4. Research design and methodology ............................................................................................... 31 4.1. Research questions................................................................................................................ 31 4.2. Comparative research design ................................................................................................ 32 4.3. Introducing the cases ............................................................................................................ 33 4.3.1. Royal Albert Wharf – London ........................................................................................ 33 4.3.2. Cruquius – Amsterdam .................................................................................................. 35 4.4. Research methods ................................................................................................................. 37 5. Empirical findings .......................................................................................................................... 40 5.1. Mixed-income housing embedded in London and Amsterdam ............................................ 40 5.1.1. London ........................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.2. Amsterdam .................................................................................................................... 44 5.2. Investigating the development processes of mixed-income housing ................................... 47 5.2.1. Royal Albert Wharf – London ........................................................................................ 47 2 5.2.2. Cruquius – Amsterdam .................................................................................................. 52 5.3. The value of public land policy for mixed-income housing ................................................... 56 5.3.1. Royal Albert Wharf & London ....................................................................................... 56 5.3.2. Cruquius & Amsterdam ................................................................................................. 58 6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 61 6.1. Main conclusion .................................................................................................................... 65 6.2. Recommendations................................................................................................................. 67 6.3. Reflection............................................................................................................................... 69 References ............................................................................................................................................. 71 Appendixes ............................................................................................................................................ 79 Appendix 1: Anonymised Interview List ............................................................................................ 79 Appendix 2: Information letter (English) ........................................................................................... 80 Great Eastern Quays (London) (top) and Cruquius (Amsterdam) (bottom), own production, 2018. 3 1. Introduction: mixed-income housing,